| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 7/8 |
| 2004/6/21 [Politics/Domestic/Abortion] UID:30937 Activity:high |
6/21 Can anyone here offer a reasonable defense for partial birth
abortion? -jrleek
\_ WOW! This was a *great* troll! I'm shocked that you got so many
lines out of such an obvious hot-button issue. *VERY* well done!
You earn the "Troll of the Month" award!
\_ if the foot is still in the pussy, it's fair game
\_ Why do you hate trolls?
\_ Um, which procedure are you talking about, since the PBA folks
can't seem to specify (even in the bill)? Do you mean Intact
Dilation and Extraction?
\_ Either Intrauterine cranial decompression ior Intact
Dilation and Extraction. Perferably both, I don't see a
whole lot of difference between the two. -jrleek
\_ Here is some information on intact dilation and extraction:
http://csua.org/u/7up (nationmaster link)
This procedure is only performed under extreme circumstances,
most of which involve the woman's life being put in severe
danger or the fetus actually dying in utero. I would argue
its necessary for doctors to be able to choose this procedure
under these circumstances. The bill that passed through
Congress and that Bush signed did not, and that is why it will
ultimately be struck down.
\_ My understanding is the the bill that was passed
allowed for the procedure under these conditions.
Link?
\_ I believe the situation is described under the link I
provided. The bill _does_ make an exception to save the
woman's life, but does not make an exception for
"health." This is an extremely murky area, becuase
then you are required to get into judgements about what
damage to quality of life constitutes "grevious damage"
to health, and distinguishing that from a case where
the woman's life really is in danger. I believe there
is also some very murky language in the bill itself
as to what procedure they were talking about, but I don't
have any URLs on hand for that one at the moment.
The groups challenging the law claim that it defines
"partial-birth abortion" so broadly that it bans
many types of safe abortion techniques that are used
in pre-viability procedures in the second trimester.
If they had passed a law that specifically banned third
trimester IDX abortions where the woman's health was
not in danger, as many states have already done, the
ACLU and NAF would probably not have much of a case.
But they wanted to make a big splash with the pro-life
groups, so they chose the more broadly worded bill.
\_ Ok, I just googled this up, but you're correct
about it not mentioning a that the procedure is
ok if the woman risks disability. However, i
wasn't really talking about the BUsh bill, I'm
curious in a more general sense. Assuming the
bill was written with this clause, why would you
support partial birth abortion? (Assuming you
don't support straight up infanticide.)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba7.htm
_/
I think you're slightly mischaracterizing the debate-- it's not as if PBAs
are being pushed as a great birth control alternative. Late term abortions
of any kind are dangerous and painful, and they're *always* a last resort.
\_ If it's so reluctant, why can't the baby be born and then be adopted? How
does having the baby essentially being birthed spare the mother anything?
It's a messy issue, but it's one of those things where if a qualified MD is
willing to do the procedure, it's probably because there's no other choice.
I'm opposed to the bill because it seems like simple political grandstanding,
and will mislead people into thinking that all abortions are as bad as PBAs.
As for why I would "support" PBAs, I support them in the same sense that I
support cops being able to shoot people-- in a perfect world they wouldn't
be necessary, but here we are.
\_ I don't support or not support it. Its not a medical
term. There is no such procedure. I support a
woman's right to choose an abortion up to the
point of viability. Beyond that, legislation is
and has always been appropriate under Roe v. Wade.
IDX itself makes me queasy, but under most of
the circumstances listed above besides the dubious
"mental health" reason, I would support it. The
"pba ban" bill is ridiculous because it defines
and bans a set of medical procedures that don't
exist.
\_ because some people think abortion is
a right no matter what.
\_ Claiming you don't know what PBA is because
it's not a medical term is like saying you
don't know what a cat is becasuse it should
be called "feline domesticus."
\_ Its a false analogy. The imagery that is used
to describe "partial birth abortion" is from
the aforementioned IDX procedure, which as I
said is extremely rare and is used almost
exclusively to protect the life of the mother.
\_ Where are the statistics that back this
claim up?
\_ Ashcroft tried to get them but was
denied by a judge. No numbers either
way.
\_ Then how can you say that it's
"extremely rare and is used almost
exclusively to protect the life of the
mother"?
The bill that was passed does not ban this
procedure specifically - instead it broadly
defines 'PBA' in a way that encompasses
many safe and legal techniques used for
pre-viability abortions in the second trimester,
some as early as the 12th week. This is bad
science and bad medicine. Just for some
perspective, 58 percent of legal abortions
occur with the first eight weeks of gestation,
and 88 percent are performed within the first
12 weeks. Just about 10 percent are performed
between 13 and 20 weeks. Less than one half
of one percent occur after 24 weeks, where IDX
would be used.
\_ Here you go, Washington Post editorial on partial birth abortions:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17029-2004Jun4.html
\_ Shrug. If people come up with a bill that says partial birth
abortions are legal only when it's the best choice for the mother,
I think that would be totally constitutional, abortionists would
be satified, and everyone could go home happy. |
| 7/8 |
|
| csua.org/u/7up -> www.nationmaster.com/encyclopedia/Intact-dilation-and-extraction Encyclopedia: Intact dilation and extraction Sponsored links: The neutrality and factual accuracy of this article are disputed. The term "dilation and extraction" or "D&X" was coined in 1992 by Dr. Martin Haskell, who developed the procedure as an alternative to D&E (see below). Slightly later, the term "intact dilation and evacuation" was proposed by Dr. The term "intact D&X" was later settled upon by combining elements of both proposals. Circumstances in which the procedure is performed Intact D&X procedures are extremely rare, carried out in roughly 02% (two-tenths of one percent) of all abortions. They may be performed during the third trimester of pregnancy if: The fetus is dead. The fetus is so malformed that it can never gain consciousness and will die shortly after birth. The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would place the woman's life in severe danger. The fetus is alive, but continued pregnancy would grievously damage the woman's health and/or disable her. The fetus is alive, but the woman wishes to end her pregnancy for non-medical/psychological reasons. Some of the fetuses which fall into this category have developed hydrocephalus. Approximately 1 in 2,000 fetuses develop hydrocephalus while in the womb; The defect is not usually discovered until late in the second trimester of pregnancy. If a fetus develops hydrocephalus, the head may expand to a size of up to 250% of the radius of a newborn skull, making it impossible for it to pass through the birth canal. In such a case, the physician may elect to perform an intact D&X procedure by draining off the fluid from the brain area, collapsing the fetal skull and withdrawing the dead fetus. However, a caesarian section delivery would allow the safe delivery of a hydrocephalic fetus without significant danger to the mother. The surgeon inserts a sharp object into the back of the fetus' head, and inserts a vacuum tube through which the brains and its fluids are extracted. The head of the fetus contracts at this point and allows the fetus to be more easily removed from the womb. The fetus can then be removed with less damage to the woman. Intact D&X procedures are not performed during the first trimester, because there are better ways to perform abortions. There is no need to follow such a procedure because the fetus' head is quite small at this stage of gestation and can be quite easily removed from the woman's uterus. Legal and political situation in the United States About the terminology This procedure is referred to as "partial-birth abortion" among the media and among pro-life groups. Bill Clinton vetoed those bills in April 1996 and October 1997 on the grounds that they did not include health exceptions. Subsequent Congressional attempts at overriding the veto were unsuccessful. Through this legislation, a doctor could face up to two years in prison and face civil lawsuits for performing such an abortion. A woman who undergoes the procedure cannot be prosecuted under the measure. United States Senate passed the same bill by a vote of 64-34. The measure does not contain health exemptions but does contain an exemption to save a woman's life. Parliament, Baroness Andrews stated that "We are not aware of the procedure referred to as 'partial-birth abortion' being used in Great Britain. It is the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologist's (RCOG) belief that this method of abortion is never used as a primary or pro-active technique and is only ever likely to be performed in unforeseen circumstances in order to reduce maternal mortality or severe morbidity." |
| www.religioustolerance.org/abo_pba7.htm horizontal rule Lawsuits launched to prevent D&X law from being applied: In an unusual coordinated move, a coalition of three pro-choice groups -- the Center For Reproductive Rights, the American Civil Liberties Union, and Planned Parenthood -- filed three lawsuits on 2003-OCT-31, before the bill was signed into law. bullet Nancy Northup, president of The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, had earlier said on 2003-FEB-13 that the House bill was still unconstitutional and was written so broadly that other types of abortion would be affected. She said: "The Supreme Court has already struck down this abortion ban, so it doesn't matter how many times Congress passes it - it will remain unconstitutional." bullet Dian Harrison of Planned Parenthood said: "President Bush intends to put the health and welfare of women in jeopardy." bullet Priscilla Smith, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said: "We want the judge to be in a position to issue an order as soon as the bill is signed." bullet Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee said: "Just in time for Halloween, these groups argue that Roe v Wade guarantees the right to deliver most of a living premature infant, in the fifth and sixth months of pregnancy, and then shove scissors through her skull." The Center for Reproductive Law and Policy, acting as an agent for a number of physicians, included the following arguments in its request for an injunction: bullet "The Act must be enjoined and declared unconstitutional because it suffers from the identical two flaws as the Nebraska statute struck down by this Court and by the United States Supreme Court... Thus, the Act prohibits physicians from exercising their professional medical discretion to determine the most appropriate procedure for their patients, and bars physicians from providing, and their patients from obtaining, the safest abortion possible. bullet Second, the Act defines the term 'partial-birth abortion' so broadly as to ban the safest and most common methods of abortion starting at least at the beginning of the second-trimester of pregnancy, including the Dilation and Evacuation ('D&E') method of abortion... bullet Alternatively, the Act is so vague that it fails to give physicians fair warning of which abortion procedures are prohibited. bullet Thus, the Act violates the rights of Plaintiffs and their patients to privacy, bodily integrity and autonomy, liberty, life, due process, and equal protection guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution." Within an hour of the bill signing, US District Judge Richard Kopf held a hearing on a lawsuit challenging the new law. He said, "It's probably likely I'm going to issue an injunction. it applies to four abortion providers licensed in Nebraska and twelve other states. He noted that a government lawyer had explained at a hearing that the medical community remains divided over the issue and that Congress did not reach a consensus. He concluded "that it is substantially likely" that the law will be found unconstitutional. The next day, 2003-NOV-6, federal judge Richard Casey in New York City, NY suspended the law for ten days. It means that partly born babies will continue to die at the point of 7-inch scissors. Certainly these judicial orders severely impede the government's ability to protect these premature infants." Anthony Romero, of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), said that the ACLU was "enormously gratified but not surprised that that law appears now to be unconstitutional." Talcott Camp, an ACLU attorney, said the organization got calls from worried physicians after the law took effect Wednesday. We were confident that this law would be temporarily enjoined because it is so obviously dangerous and unconstitutional. would be quite troubling indeed if the Justice Department attempted to enforce" the ban while the challenges were pending. Judge Phylis Hamilton in San Francisco, CA also granted a temporary injunction. A debate: There are conflicting comments: bullet According to Christianity Today magazine, "Prolife groups agree that the Partial-birth abortion Ban Act of 2003, which President Bush has promised to sign into law, may not save a single life. While it bans one form of abortion, doctors who want to get around the ban will merely begin to use another late-term procedure. Additionally, a long legal battle awaits, which may prohibit enforcement of the ban for years to come. bullet Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council said: "I think it's a major victory for pro-life Americans. We have come with our toes to the line of crossing over into barbarism, and we've said we're not going to go there." He continued: "it is important because success breeds success. We learned that with the passage of the International Religious Freedom Act in the 106th Congress, the Freedom from Trafficking Act in the 107th Congress; and in the 108th, we passed the Prison Rape Elimination Act. This is all part of a broad-based human rights quest that resembles the efforts of our evangelical forbear William Wilberforce, who led the fight against slavery. Its significance exceeds the actual saving of human life. It is part of a bigger picture that needs concrete victories, which breeds success on other issues. bullet Mark Crutcher, founder and president of Life Dynamics, said: "As we're celebrating this perceived victory, we need to remember that a ban on partial-birth abortion does not save the life of one single baby. Every baby that would have been killed with partial-birth abortion will be killed with another procedure." He regards the PBA to be a cover for pro-choice politicians. They can inform voters that they voted for the bill even as they know that the bill will not reduce abortions. Crutcher explained: "The Supreme Court has ruled that unless you have an exception for health in it, it's unconstitutional." In common with the vast majority of pro-life advocates, he seems to believe that any health exemption in the bill is an all or nothing factor. That is, it would be impossible to allow a D&X abortion in a case where it is needed to prevent serious disability to the woman without opening the doors to allowing D&X abortions for minor, perhaps trivial, health reasons. exception in it, that wipes out the restriction on abortion because the exception includes physical, psychological, familial, the woman's age... Anything relevant to the well-being of the patient is a health exception according to the Supreme Court. bullet Kathleen Gallagher, director of Pro-Life Activities for the New York State Catholic Conference, said: "It's a historic event, because it is the first federal restriction on abortion ever passed by Congress. bullet Reina Schiffrin, president/CEO of Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic said: "It prevents women, their families and their doctors from making a decision on the best way to protect the lives and the health of women. bullet Paul deParrie, a pro-life author and anti-abortion activist from Portland, OR, considers the law useless. In it, he refers to pro-choice movement as "pro-abort" and abortion providers as "child killers:" "It was the fundraisers dream - for both sides of the war. The 'pro-life' forces crafted utterly useless laws banning the procedure and pled for money to promote and defend in court these purposeless statutes. However, none of the laws would stop a single abortion because there were already several other procedures - some more truly cruel and torturous than D&X - available to be used by the child killers." "In addition, the shrill shriek of the pro-aborts was heard throughout the land. "Nor were the politicians adverse wallowing the pig sty. Even normally pro-abort office-holders could vote for the ban and gain a few 'pro-life' votes - and possibly campaign support from pragmatic right-to-life organizations. The standard for 'pro-life' organizations giving to candidates was not whether they opposed abortion itself, but whether they would vote for the D&X ban." bullet Catherine Lederer-Plaskett, leader of the Westchester Coalition for Legal Abortion, said that the bill wi... |
| www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17029-2004Jun4.html Editorials Editorial A Healthy Decision Saturday, June 5, 2004; Page A20 A CALIFORNIA federal judge's ruling this week overturning the ban on the procedure known to opponents as partial birth abortion is far from the final word on this divisive subject. Challenges to the constitutionality of the new law are making their way through two other federal courts, and it seems inevitable that the Supreme Court will be called on to make the final judgment. But US District Judge Phyllis J Hamilton's far-reaching ruling, invalidating the law on three constitutional grounds, suggests why the justices should be no more receptive to the congressional measure than they were to a Nebraska partial birth abortion ban they rejected four years ago. Judge Hamilton's exhaustive assessment of the medical evidence underscores the degree to which the new law, like its Nebraska predecessor, infringes on women's ability to obtain other late-term abortion procedures and could prevent doctors from using the method they deem best to safeguard their patients' health and capacity to bear children. The partial birth abortion procedure, also known as intact dilation and extraction, is a variant of the hardly less gruesome dilation and evacuation procedure used in the vast majority of abortions after the first trimester of pregnancy. Judge Hamilton found that the law -- though more tightly written than the Nebraska statute -- remained so broadly worded that it could apply to regular D&E abortions or even those performed by inducing labor. Therefore, she said, it imposes an undue burden on a woman's ability to obtain a second-trimester abortion. Perhaps most significant, though, Judge Hamilton rejected Congress's attempt to make an end run around the Supreme Court ruling by declaring that the partial birth procedure is never medically necessary to protect maternal health. The absence of a health exception was one of the high court's chief reasons for invalidating the Nebraska law. Congress sought to sidestep this requirement by asserting its own medical judgment that doctors would never need to resort to the procedure on that basis; indeed, Congress asserted, the procedure "poses serious risks to the long-term health of a woman and in some circumstances, their lives." Judge Hamilton cited extensive evidence to the contrary. She found that the technique could be safer than other methods in some instances: It can reduce the risks of perforating the uterus or causing complications by leaving fetal parts behind, and it can be performed more quickly, lessening blood loss and the possibility of infection. In some situations -- for example, where there is a fetal anomaly such as hydrocephalus -- the partial birth method might be preferable to alternatives such as a Caesarean delivery, which could compromise the woman's future childbearing. Congress is entitled to some degree of deference in its assessment of the factual basis for legislation. This law, though, is an example less of diligent fact-finding than of ideological fact-twisting; its backers relied on the opinions of anti-abortion physicians, disregarded conflicting facts and misrepresented others. Judge Hamilton was the first jurist to call them on this. |